2011 (4) TMI 21 - HC - Customs

Release of detained goods - A Division Bench, in its order, dated 21.10.2009, made in W.A.No.1508 of 2009 (THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), SEAPORT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S.POLYCRAFT EXPORTS (P) LTD., AND ANOTHER) , orders have been passed in several writ petitions, including the order, dated 2.12.2010, in W.P.Nos.26964 and 27146 of 2010, directing the release of the detained goods, without any modification of the conditions impugned in the earlier orders - Hence, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the enhanced value, apart from paying the applicable rate of duty on the enhanced value.

Summary

Issues: Release of Second Hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines detained during import, conditions for release, compliance with adjudication proceedings

Release of Detained Goods:
The judgment addresses the release of Second Hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines detained during import. The respondents had requested the release of the goods subject to certain conditions, including the deposit of 40% of the enhanced value and payment of applicable duty. The court noted previous orders directing similar releases and found it appropriate to release the goods under similar conditions. The court highlighted that the conditions imposed in earlier orders had been upheld by a Division Bench in a related case.

Compliance with Adjudication Proceedings:
The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with adjudication proceedings. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the enhanced value and pay the applicable duty. Upon meeting these conditions, the respondents were instructed to release the goods promptly. The petitioner was also required to fully cooperate in the adjudication proceedings conducted by the respondents. The court stressed the need for adherence to legal procedures during the adjudication process.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with a directive for the release of the detained goods upon compliance with specified conditions. The judgment underscored the significance of following previous court orders and cooperating with adjudication proceedings. No costs were awarded, and the connected motion was closed. The judgment aimed to ensure a fair and lawful process regarding the release of the imported goods while upholding the conditions set forth in previous orders and legal standards.